Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    
    I would guess that some people might try to do this, so given that
    let's see what they would need in order to make the attempt.
    
    First they would need a general chart of time of day the race would
    start.  Next, charts of the dogs/horses.  Next, charts of the race
    track itself.  Next, the chart of the better.  Next, a chart of the
    jockey (if horses).  It gets very complex, doesn't it?
    
    Personally, I don't think this is the best use of this incredibly
    profound system.  To each their own.
    
    Carole

RE:                     <<< Note 1603.0 by COMET::ANDERSONA >>>
    
�       Using the science of Astrology, is it possible to predict events
    
    The "science" of Astrology? My dictionary defines astrology thus:
    
    Astrology, n; the mediaeval pseudo-science treating of the supposed
    influence of the heavenly bodies on mankind, and purporting to foretell
    of future events by their situation and aspects; formerly the science
    now known as astronomy.
    
    In my view astrology is a load of mumbo-jumbo and it has no chance
    whatsoever of predicting anything at all with accuracy or consistency.
    Think about it, it's been going for nigh on a thousand years, the last
    20 or so with the aid of computers and other modern technology. If
    there were anything in it, do you really think we wouldn't all know
    about it? Surely, it would be a major part of all our lives, not just
    the domain of the suggestible.
    
    Laurie.

    If Astrology could predict the outcome of races then the Bookmakers
    would be broke and the astrologers rich. However a quick look at real
    life reveals the opposite.

    Jamie.

RE:  <<< Note 1603.3 by HOO78C::ANDERSON "Happily excited, bright, attractive" >>>

    If Astrology could predict the outcome of *ANYTHING* then the Bookmakers
    would be broke and the astrologers rich. However a quick look at real
    life reveals the opposite.

    Laurie.

	Marcos, how do you always remember these things??? ;-)
	
	I'm amazed.
	
	Jay

    
    re.5
    
    Marcos- Does the known effects of Astronomy, ie- the tidal forces of the
    moon and other planets, have anything to do with the (study
    or_what_ever_it_is_called) of Astrology?!
                                                      jOHN

    Laurie,
    
    <In my view astrology is a load of mumbo-jumbo and it has no chance
    whatsoever of predicting anything at all with accuracy or consistency.
    
    Yes, I'm not surprised that it is your view.  
    
    <<Think about it, it's been going for nigh on a thousand years, the last
    20 or so with the aid of computers and other modern technology. If
    there were anything in it, do you really think we wouldn't all know
    about it? 
    
    I don't think you in particular would know about it, but there are many
    who do.  Not as some 'fortune-telling' aid, but as a tool used in
    understanding one's self, as a psychological/spiritual study.  I'd
    suggest you pick up a book on Esoteric Astrology, but from your
    previous notes your mind is closed to these subjects.
    
    <<Surely, it would be a major part of all our lives, not just
    the domain of the suggestible.
    
    There you go insulting countless readers; some who have studied
    astrology for years.  I know some brilliant people who also happen to
    be astrologers or believe in the study of astrology.
   
    Ro
    

    Marcos:
    
    The moon has been long known to cause tides, and to affect the human
    psyche; that I'm afraid, is not what astrology is about. Astrology is
    about the position of stars, moons, and constellations at the time of
    one's birth, and the belief that said positions are the mould from
    which one's personality is irreversibly fashioned, the framework of
    one's very being. Small matters like environment, parental influence,
    education, and learning from experience, are of course, not considered
    important. These, "small matters" are glossed over in ambiguous
    language, and catch-all phrases, into which the reader is encouraged to
    read whatever he or she wants to read. These stellar positions are
    graphically, and literally, represented on what is known as a "chart",
    which is produced according to tables and other known data, of the
    stellar positions at the time, tasks all easily given to a computer. I
    understand from .1 that one can produce a "chart" for a racecourse.
    This must be a very interesting exercise.
    
    Further, the interpretations given to the relevance of these positions
    is not the result of scientific research, but of the writings of many
    "experts" who have left their beliefs for those that follow. Anyone
    pronouncing on your "chart" will lean heavily (absolutely) on these
    writings. This "science" is so subjective, that no person with any
    grasp on reality, would pay it the slightest heed. In other words, they
    will compute ones chart according to known planetary data, and then
    make judgements and take opinion according to interpretations either
    taken from previous "experts", or according to their own experience.
    Naturally, this highly subjective opinion will be worded in such a way
    that one will be able to interpret it any way one wishes.
    
    In the popular press, astrology is very much predictive, and many
    people consult so-called professional astrologers in an effort to
    forsee and hopefully control, their destiny. As I said, it's a load of
    mumbo-jumbo. Perhaps one of the "believers" in this conference would
    care to enlighten me? Are the facts in the above paragraphs materially
    wrong?
    
    As for my dictionary, the reference to the redefinition of astrology, 
    is to illustrate that that which is now known as astronomy, was once
    known as astrology, and was re-named in order to differentiate the
    true science from the pseudo-science.
    
    Laurie.

    re- .9

    Sorry, stupid question.

    i Guess i was just trying to point out that there is a definite
    difference between known scientific cause-and-effect as it relates to
    Astronomy, and that of the Occultic belief in Astrology.

    
    Laurie,
    
    You can have your opinion about astrology, but until you have spent
    some time studying the subject you won't really understand what it
    has to offer.
    
    Carole

    I think that many self-proclaimed sceptics equate (those with interests in
    Occult topics) with (people who call 1-900 numbers to find out what kind
    of day they are going to have).  Am I right ?
    
    Astrology, along with Tarot, are hallmark Occult practices 
    that traditionally represent aspects of counter-culture, and as
    counter-culture trends shift, so do our interpretations of exactly
    what these things are and what they can be used for.  I doubt that in 
    total, believers and students of aspects of these topics are any 'more 
    suggestible' than the Romanticists in the 18th and 19th century or the 
    Symbolists in the 19th and 20th, to which impetus I think many of these 
    practices owe a lot of their popularity.   
    
    The rejection of the non-rational aspects of human nature
    have been a part of our dominant ideology for centuries, and there has
    always been some resistance to it, sometimes providing significant 
    social and political forces.  Certainly, it attracts ignorance
    and gullibility like a magnet, and extremism, as aspects of some of these 
    movements can become truly 'anti-rational' as well as emphasizing
    non-rational parts of human nature.   But these movements have also
    been the origin of some of the greatest brilliances of mankind.
    
    Traditional Astrological divination from a conservative 
    view is to me very definitely pseudo-science and not science, and 
    numerous attempts to verify its accuracy have failed, including by what 
    I believe to be people originally favorable to the possibility of 
    planetary influence on personality.   
    
    Even admitting specific counterexamples like lunar tides
    doesn't seem to me to strengthen the position of the Astrological system in
    general.  Unless I've missed something, the preponderance of
    evidence for predictive Astrology in general is fairly weak, 
    particularly for event prediction but also for personality trait 
    prediction.  
    
    On the other hand, part of what I think Carole was trying say was that
    we do have an alternate interpretation of Astrology as well, as
    a very sophisticated *model* of human personality, as opposed
    to a predictive system.  Similar modern interpretations are sometimes
    made of Tarot.  
    
    Dane Rudhyar was a major influence on this trend of thought in
    Astrology in particular, and of course Carl Jung
    investigated Astrology to some degree from both the perspective
    of its personality <predictive> power and its personality <reflective>
    power.   I think Jung's most favorable results were in the somewhat
    accurate prediction of marriage compatibility, but he didn't seem
    to me to present the results as any more than a curiosity.   I think
    it was in one of his short treatises specifically on his concept of
    synchronicity that he published his results.
    
    			Live long and prosper, 
    
    				todd

    Thanks Todd for your balanced view (.13).  Not that I expect Laurie
    will find it 'enlightening'.
    
    Ro
    

        I sit somewhere between the two views expressed here.  I don't care
    for astrology--for a number of reasons (too complicated, not 
    interesting, etc.) but I also know that, similar to the Tarot, it
    seems to work for lots of people.  Even if it didn't, it is obviously
    very fascinating for lots and lots of people---and I'm all for
    things that aren't harmful that people can enjoy, whether it's my
    pleasure or not.
         But for me to rebute Laurie, or even any astrologers, is that
    first and foremost I believe in creating my own reality...which ties
    in so strongly with beliefs/attitudes/feelings, etc. that almost 
    *anything* can be plugged in to make "reality happen," including
    astrology.  Astrology is a system, and like all systems, is a system
    that works.  But also like all systems, including systems of cause
    and belief (including Newtonian physics, a science,) eventually
    fail.  All systems have short-comings, and some work better than
    others.  This is also true of astrology as it would be for any other
    science.
         Sometimes magic seems to work...magic is an undeveloped system.
    Arguing for science has its merits, of course, but it eventually 
    falls to thoughts and feelings...no different, therefore, than 
    astrology.
    
    Frederick
    

      
    
      In your View. Well I think there's something you need to understand
    and that something is: The Universe is very ordered and also: When
    the science of Chemistry was in its infancy, it was people who held
    the same view as you do today about Astrology that tried to prevent
    its (Chemistry) becoming an exact science. Fortunately, the majority
    of us in the world are optimists. 
    
    

RE:    <<< Note 1603.12 by RUBY::PAY$FRETTS "Spirit inspires/Will experiences" >>>

�    You can have your opinion about astrology, but until you have spent
�    some time studying the subject you won't really understand what it
�    has to offer.
    
    Carole,
    
    Since you appear to understand Astrology, perhaps you would care to
    explain to me where my assertations in .11 are incorrect. Perhaps you
    would be kind enough to attempt to explain to me, in simple terms I can
    understand, exactly what Astrology is. As you said, I have an
    opinion/understanding; I presented that understanding; if it's wrong,
    I'd appreciate knowing where and why. Should you be unable to help,
    perhaps one of the other noters in here who does understand Astrology
    could help me.
    
    RE: .13
    
    Interesting. I re-read it, and it still appears to me that my views in
    .11 are on the mark.
    
    Laurie.
    

    re: .15, 
    	Hi Marcos,
    
    There's a difference in my mind between the question 'can the heavenly 
    bodies influence us ?' and the question 'does Astrology as a complete 
    system provide a set of very specific information on how the heavenly 
    bodies influence us ?'   The former doesn't seem too outrageous to me.
    The latter is what the belief that 'Astrology is a science' 
    (vs. Astrology is an art or Astrology is an aid to reflection, etc.)
    seems to me to imply.  
    
    There's a view of traditional Astrology that claims that it cannot possibly
    'work,' because of the distance of planets, no known mechanism of
    distant bodies to effect us materially, etc..   I don't hold that
    particular view, that Astrology is *impossible*, however I do find
    that is has very little support in rigorous application as a
    predictive system.   
    
    When we factor out the factor of possible individual 
    divinatory talents in the interpretation, the resulting natal chart,
    etc., is probably extremely useful as a self-reflective tool, (whether
    it is 'true' or  not !) but is very hard to use as a precision predictive 
    tool.   Even more so than a system like I-Ching, which gives a specific
    set of related passages to reflect on for a specific situation.
    
    The Astrologer requires further analysis of planetary transitions
    and so on to establish the relationship between celestial positions
    at the time of interest and those at the time of birth, etc. etc..
    The result is so complex that verifying true predictive power would be
    in my opinion almost impossible.  And *precision* prediction is probably 
    impossible using the system (as I know it, anyway) even if it were to 
    turn out that Astrology did 'work.'    I can't imagine being able
    to reliably and mechanically predict the winner of a horse race with any 
    combination of Astrological charts, even if it worked completely as 
    suggested by its proponents, from what I've read of the literature on the 
    topic.  Certainly doesn't mean it can't provide useful information
    for other purposes, though.  
    
    That's just my impression from a superficial study of the methods, 
    but I did try to be as objective as I could in my analysis.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    Todd,
    
    I go along with that.
    
    Laurie.

    re: .17,
    	I don't know whether this applied to my Notes, but I'd like
    to briefly comment on it if you don't mind, since I represent
    a fairly conservative view in some ways.
    
>      In your View. Well I think there's something you need to understand
>    and that something is: The Universe is very ordered and also: When
    
    You know, one of hte possibilities that I considered when investigating
    Astrology was that it could operate due to this very premise, that
    human nature and events have a specific periodic nature of some kind,
    and that the heavenly bodies, like the early Astronomers' clockwork analogy,
    accurately reflect the timing of these periods (rather than or in
    addition to direct effect of some kind on us).   Given the shifting
    of the constellations over time, it seems a little messy, but probably
    not impossible.
    
>    the science of Chemistry was in its infancy, it was people who held
>    the same view as you do today about Astrology that tried to prevent
>    its (Chemistry) becoming an exact science. 
    
    You bring up another interesting point.  Alchemy is still alive in 
    various forms, from Jungian symbolism to cults of gold-seekers.
    Certainly more use has come from Alchemy than just modern
    Chemistry for many people ?  And there is more to the popularity
    of Astrology than just its possible empirical validation.
    
    >Fortunately, the majority
    >    of us in the world are optimists. 
    
Probably not impossible that some form of Astrology could some day re-appear and
    meet with more success and precision in empirical predictive power.
    
    Why is belief in Astrological prediction equated with optimism, though
    ?
    
    It seems to me that if things were really so orderly and predictable that
    we could chart them on a timetable centuries ahead of time - that it would 
    put a serious damper on the human spirit such as we know it
    now.

    Maybe there is some confusion between Astrological prediction and the
    general notion of Planetary Transformation and social utopianism ?
    The latter certainly seem more optimistic than Astrology proper.
    Predicting utopia is a different ball of wax from predicting a
    dog race !
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    re: .22, (M.)
    
>    Neither can I. I hope I haven't suggested such a thing. If I did then
>    sorry.  [re: predicting horse races with Astrology]
    	
    Not at all.  I was just trying to clarify what I perceive to be the limits
    to even a *possible* predictive power on the system as it seems to 
    be practiced by many Astrologers, due to its complexity and subjective 
    nature.   Which is a different issue from its *actual* predictive 
    power it may or  may not have.  I was just referencing the question in 
    the base note, not trying to set up a straw man, or anything like that.  
    Sorry for any confusion.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd
    

re: 1603.10 
PLAYER::BROWNL 
    
>    .........................................................Astrology is
>    about the position of stars, moons, and constellations at the time of
>    one's birth, and the belief that said positions are the mould from
>    which one's personality is irreversibly fashioned, the framework of
>    one's very being. Small matters like environment, parental influence,
>    education, and learning from experience, are of course, not considered
>    important. 

	I think if you're going to present a believable criticism of
	something, you should at least try and acquire a proper grasp
	of the terminology.

	For example, the most common system of natal astrology concerns
	itself with the positions of the sun, moon, and planets (relative
	to the earth) at the time of birth.  No other *moons* are used.

	Likewise, the position of fixed stars is seldom taken into account.

	The coordinates for sun/moon/planets are specified by projecting
	the body's longitude onto the plane of the ecliptic, with 0� of
	longitude being (by convention) the vernal point.  Also, by
	convention, the 360� of longitude are divided into 12 sectors of
	30� each, known as "signs".  While, in the past, these signs
	corresponded to various constellations (the so-called "sidereal
	zodiac"), that system of placement is not in general use anymore.
	So, to say that a "planet is in a sign" simply means that the
	body in question is in a particular angular relationship with
	the earth and the sun.  The positions of constellations have
	very little to do with it.

	As to the effects of learning and environment, I think you'll
	find very few modern texts on astrology that would discount
	the individual's ability work with and modify the potentials
	described by a birth chart.  The usual phrase is, "The stars
	impel, they don't compel."  The works of medieval astrologers
	that said things like, "If you have a child with Mars in Scorpio,
	he will turn out to be a murderer and a thief..." were all
	predicated on a social structure that had very little flexiblity
	and offered few options.

	Finally, as to the testability of natal astrology, there was 
	some very interesting work done in France in the 70's by a
	man named Michel Gauquelin.  From public records, he recorded
	the birth dates/times of over 1200 people who were prominent
	in their fields: specifically athletes, scientists, writers,
	and performers.  For each of these people, he plotted the
	position of planets relative to the horizon at the time of
	birth, and then looked for statistical significance.  What
	he found was that in a statistically significant number of
	cases, various planets would tend to appear either just
	above the horizon, or just overhead at the time of birth.
	For example, championship atheletes tend to have mars in
	one of these positions, scientists have saturn showing up
	there, etc.  Random selections of people do not show these
	clustering patterns.  It's interesting to note that the
	planets involved follow the associations of traditional
	astrology (mars for aggressiveness, etc).  This work was
	later replicated using other collections of birth data
	by workers in the U.S.

	While this one study in no way validates the entire system
	of western astrology, it certainly is a curious thing.  It
	shouldn't work at all...

	-Art

         
    To those interested in the Eastern perspective, in "Autobiography Of A
    Yogi", by Yogananda, he has a chapter called "Outwitting The Stars".
    
    Yogananda, too, was very skeptical of astrology.  His parents had had
    his chart done and it showed that he was to be married three times and
    a widower twice.
    
    But he had other ideas and wanted to become a renunciate instead.  So,
    even though there were three attempts to arrange betrothals, he
    "refused to fall in with the plans, kowing that his love for God was
    more overwhelming than any astrological persuasion from the past."
    
    However, later in life when he met his guru, Sri Yukteswar, he was
    taught more of astrology and the stories are documented in the book. 
    What Yogananda finally concluded was that:  "The deeper the
    Self-realization of a man, the more he influences the whole universe by
    his subtle spiritual vibrations, and the less he himself is affected by
    the phenomenal flux.
    
    "Occasionally I told astrologers to select my worst periods, according
    to planetary indications, and I would still accomplish whatever task I
    had set myself.  It is true that my success at such times has been
    preceded by extraordinary difficulties.  But my conviction has always
    been justified: faith in divine protection, and right use of man's
    God-given will, are forces more formadable than are the influences
    flowing from the stars.
    
    "The starry inscription at one's birth, I can to understand, is not
    that man is a puppet of his past.  Its message is rather a prod to
    pride; the very heavens seek to aruse man's determination to be free
    from every limitation.  God created each man as a soul, dowered with
    individuality, hence essential to the universal structure, whether in
    the temporary role of pillar or parasite.  His freedom is final and
    immediate, if he so wills; it depends not on outer but inner
    victories."
    
    He also went on to write that his guru said, "It is only when a traveler
    has reached his goal that he is justified in discarding his maps. 
    During the journey, he takes advantage of any convenient shortcuts."
    
    So...I had my own chart done a while back and refer to it every once in
    a while.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    
RE: Note 1603.18                  
    
    Hi Laurie,
    
    I really don't want to get into an explanation of what astrology is.
    I just think opinions would be better based on a fuller understanding
    of the subject, and for you to get a really good feel for what is
    involved you would have to put in some time studying it.
    
    My explanation of what astrology is really won't give you any
    understanding.
    
    Carole

    re: .18, .26,
    
    	A compromise might be to look through an introductory book on
    	the subject to aquaint oneself with the principles.  _The_Inner_Sky_
    	by Steven Forrest (I think that's the author?) was one that I
    	tried, and found to be very useful.   I think Carole originally
    	recommended it to me, in fact.   No need to go out and
    	purchase an armload of ephemerii just to learn what it's about. :*)
    
    						todd

    
    That's a good suggestion Todd.  Another wonderful text to read is
    Stephen Arroyo's "Astrology, Psychology and the Four Elements".  The
    first part of the book was used for his Master's degree thesis.
    
    Carole

    Better yet.  How about a blind study.  Lauri sends 10 plausible
    birthdays.  Someone do 10 charts and writes up 10 interpretations
    (I know, its a lot of work).  The ten interpretations are given ten
    labels.  Someone relatively neutral (I think I qualify) is given a list
    of correspondences between labels and dates.  Laurie gets reports
    without mention of date.  She picks out the most accurate report and
    posts its label, and we see if it matches her birthdate.

    The weakness here seems unavoidable.  We are depending on Laurie to
    rate the accuracy and either from subconscious avoidance or from
    unrealistic view of herself she may rank the most accurate description
    very low.  The only way to avoid this problem is for the "reports"
    to concentrate on unambiguous characteristics.

				    Topher

    Re .29

    >but be careful! i'll know a LOT about you; even your sexual desires &
    >preferences. do you want everyone to know? 
    
    Knowing Laurie's sexual preferences I shall be interested to see if you
    are correct.

    Jamie.

    I'll go along with this, I'm game, as Jamie well knows...
    
    Laurie.

    
    I'm sorry to see that this is going to get into a 'let me read
    your chart and prove this'.  It's not worth the effort.
    
    Carole

    I hesitate to say this, but why don't you delete .29 & .34 yourself? Am
    I missing something?
    
    Dougie
    

    Awww. I've got a list of 5 dates and times, of mixed sex. All
    participants have agreed to be fully honest about it, and I promise to
    be open and honest which is mine, and how it fits me.
    
    We're not looking so much for predictions here, as accuracy.
    
    Carole, your notes bear all the hallmarks of someone desperate to avoid
    the possibility of admitting Astrology is bunk. Since no-one has yet
    shown me how my previous statements are wrong, I am prepared to be
    convinced, by your (or someone's) assessment of me as a person, through
    no more information than my birthdate, birthplace, and time; without
    knowing which of the n (curerently 5) is mine.
    
    Laurie.
    
    PS. You can delete your own notes.

Laurie, are you going to post the times/dates so we can get started!!!  &^)

mary

    I am by no means unsympathetic to the claims of astrology, but I can't
    say that my understanding of those claims are sophisticated.  That
    said:

    It seems that it is an essential claim of all forms of personal
    astrology that a persons chart, properly interpretted, relates to that
    person (their personality or aspects of their life) in some way.

    It does not at all follow that the chart can simply be plugged into a
    computer and a rigorous interpretation should emerge.  People are too
    complex and that astrology has some validity does not mean that all
    the details of factor interaction have been rigorously codified in
    terms of their correspondence to human behavior.  For comparison,
    projective psychological tests (there are many, but the betst known is
    the "ink-blot" test) have been shown to be "externally valid" (make
    predictions about external factors) and "internally valid" (substantial
    agreement between evaluators) in double blind judging, yet require
    trained interpreters to exercise considerable subjective judgements.
    Even tests, such as the MMPI, which are quite evaluatable by computer
    -- producing a set of numbers representing different "personality"
    characteristics -- should really only be interpretted (except in the
    simplest cases) by someone with training and judgement (unfortunately
    this is frequently ignored).

    Nevertheless, computer programs for interpreting charts do exist.
    Their validity is questioned by many (most?) astrologers.

    Anyway...

    If an interpretted chart "says" something about a person -- whatever
    that something is -- and if that something has any external validity,
    if it refers to something about that person with some effect outside
    the chart; then we should be able to determine that one person's chart
    says more about that person than some other random person's chart.  The
    potential problem is in having some independent measure of the thing
    claimed to correlate (e.g., an accurate personality assesement might
    not be recognized by the person it is about).  There is room to discuss
    this problem and to figure out what to do about it.

    This can be done in a respectful way with an attitude of a desire to
    learn.  It is not a game.  It is simply taking up the challenge "if
    you don't believe it, try it and see if it works."  If astrology only
    works under conditions where its operation could easily be something
    else, then I see little reason to take it seriously even if it is
    real: a device for holding up my pants but only if I already have an
    adequate belt is not overly useful, though it might be fun.

				    Topher

    If we're going to do this right, the birthdates should probably not
    be posted here.

    We have a lot more details (who is going to build and interpret the
    charts, what kind of information are they going to include, how should
    the accuracy by assesed) to figure out.  We need input from people
    knowledgable in the "guts" of astrology.

					Topher

    I won't claim to be knowledgable on the guts of Astrology,
    but I think the neccessary information to calculate a natal chart is :
    
    Date and time of birth as exactly as possible (to the minute is 
    preferred), relative to Greenwhich Mean Time,
    
    Latitude and Longitude of location of birth, again as exactly as
    possible.   An Atlas usually can give this accurately enough.
    
    From this information, the celestial bodies as they appeared at the 
    time of birth can be calculated from an ephemeris and house chart or
    by a computer program.  The interpretation is another matter, of
    course.
    
    						hth,
    
    						todd

....ahem, do I see a *volunteer*, Mr. Moderator, to set up the T's & C's of
this experiment ???

lets get started!!

mary

    Ok, here they are, well in a following note, set hidden. when Topher
    sees fit, he can forward the note to those that need it.
    
    Ok?
    
    Laurie.
    
    PS. There are 6 dates, all births in England, mixed sex.

    
    RE: .36  Laurie
    
    I am in no way desparate Laurie.  It is just that having you change
    your mind about astrology is in no way important to me.
    
    Carole

    
    re: .10 (Laurie)
    
    Read some of C.G.Jung's stuff on synchronicity.  In this light,
    astrology, tarot, crystals, what-have-you become valid to the
    individual's subjective experience of their life.  Concerning
    reality.....isn't reality (as defined by Philosophy 101) really
    subjective?  
    
    *I* think so....;-)
    
    As far as the predictive abilities of astrology or any other
    method of divination, I have my doubts, but that doesn't deny
    they may be highly valuable as self-explorational tools helping
    us to find the *meaning* (another subjective thing) behind the
    sometimes seemingly chaotic experience we call "life".
    
    (P.S.  I have only read up to .10 .)
    
    guy

    Any progress on the charts, chaps and chapesses?
    
    Laurie.

    Hi Laurie,
    As in 1600.22, I'm watching too and obviously from the same machine.
    I'm very curious what will be the result of that 'test' (??).
    I have my experience with astrology too (about 20 years) but stopped
    that kind of games 10 years ago because
    - I don't feel anymore for 'proving' anything.
    - Most people who asked for it where only interested in having their
      chart interpreted or needed that kind of attention without
      involving themselves in one way or another. To easy !                                                  
    I would say, if you're interested in the subject, read some books
    about it (I highly prefer Dane Rudhyar, Arroyo's 'teacher'),
    else, don't waste other people's time and spent yours with something
    you're interested in.
    
    If answer, please write it here, so the other can read it to.
    
    Best regards
    
    Guido.            
                                                                    
                      

Last weeks a lot is written here about astrology, but what is missing
obviously is a frame of reference (I'm afraid this is missing for a few
hundred years already).

What is astrology, or what has it to be, or what can it be ?

Please first realise that there is a very distinction between 'astrology' and
'horoscopy', the latter being one manifestation of 'applied astrology'.
As it is the basic, the following only deals with astrology.
I did some homework and made a kind of synthesis of the very thorough approach
as found in Rudhyar's work.

He states: Astrology is the 'Algebra of life'. Why ?

Algebra has its origin in the Arabic word 'Al Jebr', derived from 'jabara',
that means 'bind together'. So, the fundamental function of algebra is to bind
together elements, to bring them in correlation or integrate them so that they
will generate a consistent whole.
Algebra is part of mathematics, the science that deals with the exact
RELATIONS BETWEEN QUANTITIES (algebraic magnitudes) and their functions and
that establishes the methods to derive new quantities according to these 
relations.
But algebra also deals with the heading 'conventional symbols', that can be
made suitable to represent each element or all groups of elements.

This way, astrology is a kind of algebra, because it deals with symbols
(planets, segments of the geocentric space, segments of orbits, nodes and
other astrological points) and integrates them in a formula, representing
a living whole.
But these symbolic elements are not quantitative. On the contrary, they are 
pictures of universal qualities of life. So, astrology is a kind of ALGEBRA
OF QUALITIES and these qualities are not sensorial (white, blue, small,
painful) but qualities concerning LIFE PROCESSES on phyiological and
psychological level.

One could state that astrology is to the empirical sciences that deal with
formation, growth and decay of organisms, as mathematics is to sciences
that deal with lifeless matter. So, astrology on his own has not more
significance than algebra. It establishes relations between symbols that are
only real in a conventional sense, just as x, y, n are only conventions.
Astrologers use terms as opposition, square, conjunction just as mathemati-
cians use addition and multiplication signs, 'and'ing and 'or'ing, and their
progressions are nothing but more complicated operations, just like functions,
differentials and integrations. Even the rotation of the celestial bodies
constitute in their totality one extensive, complicate symbol that, on his
own, is nothing but a CYCLIC CHANGING PATTERN OF RELATIONS.

In other words, the astrological area of the movement of celestial bodies is
analogue to the area of mathematical theses. None of them have a real content;
both are only formal, symbolic and conventional. They only get real value by
the living experiences that they serve and integrate. They have the power
to give to each substantial reality, on which they are applied, coherence,
form, logic and order.
Just as mathematics can be applied to physical experiments, generating modern
physics, astrology can serve physiology, geology, medecine, history, sociology
and psychology.

    re: .50,
    	Thanks, that was an interesting entry.    The symbolic
    interpretations of Astrology is fairly old, but I think it was
    only really elaborated to the degree you suggest in the past
    hundred years or so.   Originally, Astrology was really quite literal
    in its insistence that planets serve as interediaries between
    God(z) and humanity, and influence or even control our fates.  
    I've heard that it came largely from the Aristotelian three-tier model 
    of the universe that was propagated by the Church into the middle ages,
    and partly from Neo-Platonism.  God resides in an outer sphere,
    influencing the other planets, which in turn influence the fates on
    earth.   
    
    SO you can view Astrology as an old (Sumerian ?  At least Babylonian) 
    technology that has been reinterpreted throughout the ages, and now is 
    coming more to be viewed as 'symbolic' somewhat because there is 
    (apparently) so little basis for its literal verity.   I have no doubt 
    though, that some who study Astrology take it very literally as direct 
    influence of the celestial bodies on man, just as there have always been 
    Alchemists who seek material gold rather than or in addition to some 
    symbolic spiritual essence.  ANd those who even in ancient times seemed 
    to recognize the symbolic algebra of the Kaballah, Astrology, Alchemy, 
    and so on.
    
    							kind regards,
    							todd

    RE:  .50
    
    I have a problem with the logic here, specifically the simile comparing
    astrology and life processes with mathematics and physical things. 
    (forgive the broad generality of my paraphrase)
    
    When we use mathematics in physical sciences, the numbers are
    measurements.  For example, in chemistry we measure ph, in biology we
    measure the quantities of chemicals in the blood, and in physics we
    measure gravity.  These measurements are then plugged into formulas.
    
    How does this compare to astrology?  
    
    Also, astrology has always sounded to me like a deterministic system.  
    If its logic is strictly followed, there's no room for free will.
    
    Like a lot of people, I can accept astrology on a practical level: if
    the descriptions seem to fit, I accept them.  But I suspect that if I
    am predisposed to accept the astrologer's word, I will find truth in
    whatever I am told.
    
    I remain doubtful,
    Laura

  
  Re .50 (Laura)
  
  > measurements.  For example, in chemistry we measure ph, in biology we
  > measure the quantities of chemicals in the blood, and in physics we  
  > measure gravity.  These measurements are then plugged into formulas. 
  > 
  > How does this compare to astrology?                                  
  
  The way I read .50, the measurements are primarily angles and differences :
  the angles subtended by the various planets (both in relation to each other
  and with respect to the "reference grid" of the house system in use) and
  the difference between said angles at two different times/places (whether
  between the current values and those at the time/place of birth or between
  two successive days simply referenced against the grid, independant of any
  individual's configuration).
  
  Those values are absolutes - the constants for any specific instance of
  the equation - but it is the way that they are interpreted that relate to
  the body of the equation itself : 
  
  eg., the "measurements" x=2, y=3, z=4 are still valid regardless of whether
       they are plugged into the equations w = x + y^z  or w = x^y^z.
  
  The hard part is determining a valid formula ...
  
  If you are concerned about the number of "equations" which use different
  fiddle factors to get close to their "result", think about the number of
  one-off constants in traditional science ... not things like pi or e
  which crop up everywhere but rather the "Bloggs constant" which happens
  to provide the expected result in one particular area only ... to my mind
  this suggests that there is still room for improvement of the formula (or
  of the accuracy of the measurements) as a truly singular constant is not
  as believable [remember IMHO] as an operator applied to a universal
  constant.  [ One of my "rainy day" projects is to produce a table of
  permutations of universal constants to compare against some of the lesser
  fiddle factors ... I'm fascinated how some numbers crop up time and time
  again and by the interesting relationships therein ... but I think I'm off
  the topic again ... just for a change :-) ]
  
  Frank

    OK - so the astrologer is measuring relationships between the planets. 
    If you don't believe that the planets actually influence our lives (and
    that seems to be an obsolete belief), then what relevance do the
    planets have to our lives?  Why would astrology work at all?
    
    Laura

Re .54 (Laura):

    >If you don't believe that the planets actually influence our lives (and
    >that seems to be an obsolete belief), then what relevance do the
    >planets have to our lives?  Why would astrology work at all?

Well, although I am not nor ever intend to be an astrologer, perhaps I can 
answer this.

Part 1:  "If you don't believe ... then what ...?"  If something works (or
         doesn't, for that matter), it isn't usually tied into beliefs.  If
         astrology works, it works; if not, it doesn't.

Part 1a: Assume astrology doesn't work.  Then the revelance of planets to our
         lives would be nil (unless we explore them some day -- a distinct
         possibility).

Part 1b: Assume astrology works.  Then the revelance of the planets to our
         lives would be that they could reveal the more and less favorable
         times to attempt certain actions.

Part 2:  Astrology _might_ work because of subtle tidal effects.  This may or
         may not tie into classical astrology; some think it does, while others
         are developing what they call "neoastrology," with which they attempt 
         to discern certain personaity traits through planetary positions 
         at birth.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .54,
    >	Why would astrology work at all ?
    	    ^^^^^
    
    Assuming the validity of some aspect of predictive Astrology,
    Possibilities I have thought of :
    
    1.  Trite explanation --  yet unexplained subtle influences of
    	planets themselves,
    
    2.  'Chaos'-like explanation  --  Complex periodic nature of general 
    	social trends aligns with periodic
    	nature of planetary movement (more complex variation of
    	Sirius appearing about the time the Nile floods),
    
    3.  Psychological explanation #1 --  Self-fulfilling prophecy made possible 
    	by the complexity of the way interpretation works.  'Suggestion.'
    
    4.  Psychological explanation #2  --  Prediction does not work per se, but 
    	provides an insight of some other kind for personal growth upon 
    	reflection.
    
    5.  Solipsism explanation  --  Radical magical worldview is valid at a 
    	deep level and there are interconnections between events that are 
    	otherwise inexplicable, or triggered by consciousness in some way.
    
    6.  Psychic explanation -  Astrological symbols trigger elements of deep 
    	psychic structure that promote clairvoyance.
    
    7.  Ancient cosmogony is correct in some way and some kind of
    	subtle energy passes from planet to planet and then on to
    	the earth.
    
    8.  People just love to observe the heavens, and it provides
    	a great rich source of symbology and possibilities that carries
    	a long tradition behind it, with some valid aspects and some
    	obsolete ones.
    
    	I'm sure I left a few out, but 8 seems like a good number
    	to stop.  :-)
    
    							todd

Most probably, the origin of the symbolic power of astrology has to be found
in old ages, when human beings had not yet developed that much self cons-
ciousness (we have ?). They did not experience themselves as 'separated' from
their environment (I AM), but as part of it (paricipation mystique).
Gradually, with growing self consciousness, they found in the regular move-
ment of celestial bodies a feeling of ORDER, by which they learned to under-
stand order in the seemingly chaos of natural phenomena (and in themselves).
Astrology had become a TOOL to create order in natural phenomena and to
achieve certainty about the future.
But the celestial bodies and their movement had no meaning in themselves.
They were only symbols that were filled with a content (sun=source of life,
moon=unsure,changing, sun-moon relation=fertility), derived from corres-
ponding living experiences (light, dark, fertility, fear, war). The symbols
were only formal, but had the power to generate coherence and order when
applied to separate experiences. And the totality of rotations of sun, moon,
planets and stars became in fact a complicated, more dimensional measuring-
instrument and clock to determine the periodic behaviour of natural
organisms (of each whole).

This is not that different from what science still does nowadays when mea-
suring some natural phenomena with a measuring-instrument, or determine a
length of time with a clock. They just generate coherence and order in
separate experiences ! Modern physics have stated that these measurements
depend on the place and movement of the observer. To be able to measure a
distance, one must place the measuring-rod with one end on a fixed point.
In astrology, all measurements start at the first point of independant
existence, the first breath in case of a human being. The ecliptic (nothing
but the orbit of Earth around the Sun, devided in 12 sectors of 30 degrees)
is measured starting from the vernal equinox (intersection of ecliptica and
equator), because around this time all plants start growing (at the northern
hemisphere were astrology originated).

In other words, when astrologers want to investigate the periodic laws and
the laws, determining the structural relations, of a certain 'life' ('whole'),
that starts at a certain time, they just project the position of their
cosmic measuring-instrument on a piece of paper and measure the whole of
all natural elements concerned.

    Assuming astrology works, I can think of 2 other ways of explaining it. 
    These are analogies.
    
    1.  Like a clock.  All parts are interrelated and move in unison.  We
    can determine the position of a given part by looking at any other
    part.
    
    2.  Like a crystal.  The crystalline structure exists everywhere in the
    structure.  This explanation is similar to the hologram.  With a
    glass or plastic hologram, we can cut it into pieces, and each piece
    will still retain the same image as the whole.
    
    Historically, the clock analogy was popular in the Renaissance.  You
    can find numerous illustrations showing clockworks in the sky.  Clocks
    were then the highest in technology.  They were fascinating.  You don't
    hear anyone use the clock analogy these days.
    
    Today, our high technology includes holograms.  It feels right to use
    the hologram analogy.  But I suspect that is because holograms are new
    and mysterious to us.  Fifty years from now, I doubt the hologram
    analogy will be popular.  
    
    If synchronicity can be proven by some future physics, then maybe the
    hologram analogy will have some validity.  
    
    I continue to doubt that astrology works at all, at least not
    independently of one's psychic ability, or independent of the
    self-fulfilling prophecy.
    
    Laura

    Laura,
    
    Your entries (and Todd's and others) are most valuable in their
    constructive approach. I would like to answer on them, but have
    big difficulties to order things, so I'm just thinking and thinking
    and thinking.
    I've the impression that the difficulty originates in that we are trying
    to approach this matter from our current (rational, analytic) way of
    thinking and that it never can explained that way because the rational
    mind can only cover quantitative objects.
    Perhaps ones I can get the puzzle together.
    
    Kind regards,
    Guido.
                

    I'm inter-net posting this article here because it shows what I
    thought was a very relevant example of the thought process that
    goes on around astrological prediction, and divination in general.
    
    The author is attempting to derive their own predictive system
    using astological symbology.  Net headers moved to the end.
    This is very long (over 300 lines).
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
 
  Hello,
 
   I'd like to post a description of a syncretic system of
 divination that I have been recently developing.  I have
 never been satisfied with 'pre-digested' systems of ritual,
 preferring my own symbology and/or interpretation to that
 of others.  I only post this out of a feeling of debt --
 I have gleaned so much useful information from the Usenet
 groups alt.magick, alt.pagan, alt.astrology, alt.mythology,
 and so on... that I wanted to try to give something back.
 
   The system is based on many sources: astrology, Kabbalah,
 Tarot, geomancy, and a touch of I Ching for starters.  I'm
 only a curious student of the above systems, however --
 astronomy is my particular calling -- so please forgive
 (and tell me!) if I stretch the usefulness of any of the
 systems upon which I draw my ideas.
 
   While some recent discussion has debated the value of
 'syncretism' - i.e. the drawing on many sources for one's
 own personal set of beliefs - I won't make a judgement on
 which path (choosing one tradition or drawing on many) is
 objectively 'better.'  It's a decision that has to be made
 individually, and, at 25, I'm only beginning the inner
 debate on which concept is more palatable.
 
   In addition, I should say something about my definition
 of 'divination.'  I use this term with great reservation,
 because I do not like to deal in the standard types of
 'questions' that are asked when one commonly thinks about
 divining future events - e.g. 'Will I fall in love?', 'How
 can I make more money?', 'Should I take this job?', and so
 on.  These seem to me very shallow reasons for consulting
 one's 'inner voice.'  I have 7 years of experience using
 the I Ching behind me, and I tend to get the most relevant
 'responses' from the oracle when NOT asking a particular
 question - just _wondering_ about the past and possible
 future paths my life could take me.  
 
   The case can be made for calling this type of divination
 'simple meditation' and leaving it at that, but 'meditation'
 takes you nowhere if you don't have a 'map' to go by,  as
 Colin Low has pointed out in his wonderful notes on Kabbalah
 (posted recently in alt.magick).  All the hot air to follow
 is simply a description of the development of my own personal
 'map' of the mind/soul/universe (take your pick), and how it
 could be used in a practical way.  Use it as you will (or
 should I say 'Will') !
 
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
                A Coelestial Map of the Psyche
                      by Steven Cranmer
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
 
 'I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's;
  I will not reason and compare; my business is to create.'
 
                                  - William Blake, _Jerusalem_
 
 
 I.  Common elements to divination systems, and a simplistic
     explanation why they work.
 
   Okay, so just what is this 'inner voice' that I mentioned
 earlier?  Is it what some psychologists call the 'unconscious?'
 Is it the 'Holy Guardian Angel' of Kabbalah?  Or the 'Tao' of
 the I Ching?  Well, I'm not really sure.  I am quite certain,
 however, that there are areas of the mind/brain that exist
 independently of normal waking 'consciousness.'  These areas
 can manifest themselves in dreams, or in meditative visions,
 or in myriads of mental 'problems' (neuroses, psychoses,
 phobias, etc... ad infinitum).
 
   It is my contention, also, that these areas of the mind can
 be ASKED to show themselves through the divinatory (or magickal)
 process.  This is probably not news to the majority of the
 readers/practitioners on alt.magick, but to people, like myself,
 with more of a tendency to be empirical and/or scientific in
 their thought processes, I believe it bears discussion. 
 
   The divinitory process I shall describe is essentially a
 magickal ritual, and these have been described in and out of
 this forum to some extent.  Therefore I'm going to just talk
 about one aspect of this process:  How to 'persuade' this inner
 self (be it the unconscious or whatever) to say something
 pertinent to the conscious 'ego' that is doing the 'asking.'
 
   The common element in such processes as the I Ching, Islamic
 geomancy, and horary (spelling?) astrology, is the following:
 a 'System of Correspondences' is provided, which is usually
 composed of combinations of small numbers of 'random' elements,
 that can, when arranged in a certain way, mean something to
 the caster.  These ideas can be divided into two parts...
 
   (a) the definition of a COMMON SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE to be used
       between the conscious and unconscious participants
   (b) and the definition of a SUBLIMINAL PROCESS that allows
       'speech' between the two participants in this LANGUAGE.
 
   The 'language' is easy to grasp:  In Kabbalah it is the
 Sefiroth and joining pathways between them; in the I Ching it
 is the combinations of the 64 hexagrams; in astrology it is
 the positions and aspects of the planets; in Tarot it is the
 positions and types of cards that are chosen.
 
   The 'subliminal process,' however, takes a little more
 pondering.  On the surface, it its the physical means the
 caster uses to obtain the 'message;' tossing yarrow stalks,
 dealing cards, looking up planetary positions, whatever.  More
 importantly, however, my experience has taught me that this
 process must be _within_ the control of the caster, but not
 under _too_ much control.  'What the hell does that mean?' you
 may ask!  Think of the juxtaposition of the following two acts:
 
 - Take a deck of playing cards.  Go up to the top of a 30 story
   building and throw the cards off the side.  Get someone with a
   vacuum cleaner to suck up the cards in the order that he/she
   finds them on the ground.  The 'resulting message,' i.e. the
   order of the cards, can be argued to be PURELY RANDOM, at least
   from the standpoint of a human observer.
 - Now take the same deck and arrange them in number and suit order.
   Go through the deck by twos and swap the order of each pair.
   The 'resulting' order of the cards is PURELY DETERMINISTIC,
   that is, you know what you are doing.
 
   The 'subliminal' process needed for divination, however, is
 between these two extremes.  The actions must be under POSSIBLE
 control by some part of the mind, but not under precise conscious
 control at that moment.  Using the above example again, this
 middle ground could be a reeeal fast 'three card Monte' or game
 of 'Concentration.'  Sure, it's possible to keep track of the
 positions of the cards, but blink once and you've lost it!  People
 who are into hypnosis say that the mind remembers everything,
 it's just the 'conscious retrieval' with which we have trouble!
 
   So this divinatory process, hopefully forgiving my 'pop
 psychology,' is just a method of allowing the unconscious to affect
 physical reality through acts that are possibly controllable, but
 not consciously controlled.  People who use diving rods/pendulums
 count on this effect to produce 'micro-trembles' in the hands that
 are amplified by whatever mechanism they are using (such as a
 small pendulum) into actual 'directions' in space.  Unfortunately,
 since these effects are also under possible conscious control, it
 is very easy to fake one's results!  Thus, 'Caveat Emptor' when
 listening to someone else's claims!
 
   One final note:  This method of communication between the
 'inner' and 'outer' parts of the psyche is (at least to me) valid,
 but it is not an easy thing to start up an unambiguous dialog.
 I have learned to try and treat this 'inner voice' with as much
 reverence as possible.  Think of it as doing you a favor, not as
 an informal 'chat.'  Also, noting the ambiguity of this type of
 communication, the old adage... 'Be careful what you wish for,
 you may get it!' comes to mind.  These issues, however, are more
 under the aegis of ritual and one's own personal belief system,
 so I won't sermonize any more.
 
 
 II.  The symbolism of the 'map' itself.
 
   On the surface, my 'map' resembles that of astrology more than
 any other -- I use the planets (and other bodies) of the solar
 system as symbols of different aspects of the psyche.  As I
 mentioned previously, I am an astronomer, and it took me a while
 to get beyond the prevailing anti-astrology prejudice in the
 physical sciences.  One thing that helped was Maggie McPherson's
 excellent set of 'lessons' posted to alt.astrology.  Astrology
 contains a wonderful symbology that has enchanted people for
 millenia.  However, there exist some things about astrology as
 it is practiced today that did not 'sit' quite right with me:
 
 (a) The assumption that the ACTUAL positions of the planets in
     the sky mean something and/or affect people.  I am reminded
     of alchemical texts that warn the aspiring alchemist not to
     confuse the 'base' metals with their 'symbolical' counterparts.
 
 (b) The standard 'attributions' of the planets (i.e. Mars is war-
     like, Mercury aids communication skills, Venus is harbinger of
     love, etc...).  These correspondences were created at a time
     when all that was known about the planets was their brightness,
     color, and orbital period!  I think we can use the added
     information we have today to formulate better concepts, while
     still being 'in synch' with what has come before.
 
 (c) The geocentric nature of present-day astrology.  This archaic
     model is justified by astrologers by the fact that the 'influ-
     ences' of the planets reach us on Earth, so this is where the
     center of the system should be.  Since I abandoned these
     'influences' (point a), and am appealing to modern-day
     knowledge about the planets (point b), this can be abandoned
     as well.  As it turns out, one can use sort of a Jungian
     perspective to justify this:  the Self (Sun) is at the center,
     and the Ego/Persona (Earth) is only one of the many parts of
     the whole.
 
   So what is left, you may ask!  Quite a bit, I believe.  If I may
 quote Ms. McPherson's 'Lesson One' without permission...
 
 'By realising the twelve element-mode combinations four times as
  signs (fixed places), planets (moving objects), houses (moving
  places), and aspects (relations among the moving objects and the
  moving places), and by allowing these to interact to create new
  complexes of essences, the amount of differentiation in the universe
  became effectively infinite. We had created a universe in which
  consciousness could grow.'
 
 This 'differentiation' remains in a heliocentric and purely symbolic
 system.  One can think about the planets as 'forces' and the signs
 and houses as constraining 'forms', and their relations (aspects)
 being the necessary interactions between forces and forms.
 
   I would now like to present my 'experimental' correspondences of
 the planets.  Maybe some astrologers won't find anything _too_
 'radical' about them, anyway.  Please forgive the order....
 
 *Sun     : The Self - the center of being; unchanging and absolute.
 *Earth   : The ego/persona - my conscious 'picture' of myself.
 *Moon    : The shadow - everything that I like to think is NOT 'me.'
 *Venus   : The anima/animus - the idealized, mysterious opposite-sex.
 *Mercury : The child   - the idealized past   ('puer' of alchemy)
 *Mars    : The old one - the idealized future, closer to our same-sex
              parent than we like to think! :-)
 
 *Asteroids : The dividing line, mutable and unstable, between the
              personal 'profane' mind and the 'occult' and 'sacred.'
              (define these terms at your own risk!!)
 
 *Jupiter and Saturn : The first experiences beyond the 'personal.'
      If one wishes to compare with Kabbalah, I like to think of
      these as Gevurah and Chesed - the 'gates of creation and
      destruction.'  More mythological examples could be the Egyptian
      Nut/Geb or the Greek Ouranos/Gaia.  The 'big' physical forces
      beyond our control.
 
 *Uranus and Neptune : These are more 'primal' - the Kabbalistic
      comparision could continue with these as Binah and Chockmah,
      and the mythological examples follow as Shu/Tefnut or
      Chaos/Phanes.  These represent the basic manifestations of
      polarity - Yin and Yang - in the universe.
 
 *Pluto?  Planet X?  The 'fixed' stars?  Whatever your choice, we
      need something to represent the full collective unconscious.
      It's kind of neat to think of all the other stars, with all
      their families of planets, making up the 'collective' over-
      soul, to wax transcendentalist for a moment.
 
 *Halley's Comet?  Well, it passes by the orbits of all the planets,
      subtly affecting them as it goes.  I like to think of it as
      sort of a "Kundalini" or "Lightning Flash" force that can
      touch/activate all the others.  Read John Calvin Batchelor's
      _The_Further_Misadventures_of_Halley's_Comet_ (I think that's
      the title) for some interesting symbology along this vein.
  
   Well, those are the 'forces.'  What about the 'forms?'  These are
 the relative positions of the planets in the... hmmm, 'sky?'  Giving
 up geocentricity also does away with our definition of the sky.
 We now have to talk about their SIDERIAL (with respect to the 'fixed'
 stars) positions.  I've never had too much of an intuitive 'feel' for
 the meanings of the 12 astrological 'signs', so I've chosen to
 abandon them as well.  Those who would disagree are completely free
 to retain them, of course!
 
   I also have chosen to limit the actual positions of my 'symbolic'
 planets in the sky by dividing the 'circle' into a fixed number of
 divisions.  This does away with the touchy matter of defining 'orbs'
 (i.e. error tolerances) for astrological 'aspects' (i.e. angles
 between the bodies).  After a bit of figuring, I settled on dividing
 the circle into _60_ divisions.  Sixty is a number that has been
 considered 'sacred' by Mesopotamian cultures as well as the Chinese,
 and it supports exact 'aspects' of 1,2,3,4,5,6,10, and 12.  Some
 more familiar with astrology may think that only 60 positions on a
 circle is very constraining, but I counter that with the fact that
 the chances of many more interesting aspects, thus more 'meaning' arise.
 
   I'm still working on how to make some order out of the 60 posit-
 ions.  My favorite idea, still in the experimental stage, is an
 'outward' dividing into six parts, representing the 6 cardinal
 directions:  north, south, east, west, up, down (+x,-x,+y,-y,+z,-z).
 Each of these sectors is divided into ten subdivisions, representing
 ten different 'states' of matter ('elements'???):  plasma (fire),
 gas, liquid, solid, and degenerate matter (white dwarf and neutron
 star cores!!), each in matter and anti-matter (another Yin/Yang?)
 of course.  These directions ('WHERE') and states of matter ('WHAT')
 describe the physical world of 'forms' like the planetary attributions
 describe the inner world of mental 'forces.'
 
 
 III.  (I + II), or a little game of Solitaire.
 
   Well, how can the above symbolic 'language' of the planets be
 used for divination?  This is where the similarities to Tarot
 come in.  All one seemingly needs from the 'unconscious' are the
 positions of the each of the planets on the circle.  The use of
 cards to determine these positions, maybe with one set with the
 1-6 'directions' and another with the 1-10 'states of matter', seems
 like a neat concept to me.  DISCLAIMER:  I have not actually tried
 this yet, and am only posting this 'method' because it seems the
 most 'natural' to me at this time.
 
   The smaller numbers of cards to deal with at one time (6 and/or 10,
 as opposed to, umm, 22+52 (??) in Tarot) seems to be an efficient
 aid for the 'marginally conscious' subliminal communication.  I'm
 going to try to lay the cards out face down and 'randomize' them
 maybe one or two at a time (at a very quick rate, so my conscious
 mind loses track of which is which!), instead of holding them and
 shuffling in the standard way.  The choice of one card from each
 mini-pack will determine the position of the planet in question, and
 the process will be repeated for each body.
 
   What comes next?  Interpretation, no doubt.  I'm going to start
 out with the 'standard' meanings of the basic aspects (conjunctions, 
 oppositions, trines, etc...) and modify them as I go along.  This
 system, with its small number of positions, should have more 'grand'
 aspects (i.e. ones with more than two participants), so these will
 also have to be dealt with.
 
   I hope the above system doesn't seem overly 'mechanistic' in
 its assumptions or goals, but a conservative start can lead just
 about anywhere!
 
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
   Thanks for listening!
 
   "Hold your fire -- Keep it burning bright,
    Hold the flame 'til the dream ignites --
    A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission!"
                                                  - N. Peart
 
                                  Steve Cranmer
                                  [email protected]
Article: 2452
Path: pa.dec.com!decwrl!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy!cranmer
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: An "astrological" divination system
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 26 Feb 92 23:46:13 GMT
Lines: 331

"Astrologers investigate the periodic laws and the laws, determining the 
structural relations of a certain 'whole' by studying the projection of 
their cosmic measuring-instrument" (the astrological chart).

Does this mean that the astrological chart shows something real in itself ?
Not at all. It tells nothing; not more than whatever clock or measuring-rod.
Unless we know at first what we are going to measure, we will know nothing 
and we only see a set of algebraic formulas, projected on a kind of wheel.
If we know nothing about human nature, an astrological chart will tell us
nothing about the nature of a particular human being. If we know nothing
about atmospheric pressure and air currents, an astrological weather chart
will tell us nothing (just as a usable weather chart).

Jupiter and Mars have no one concrete meaning. They don't mean anything more
than 3 or 4, or spiral or line, or m or p. They are just symbols.
But if we say, here is a newborn human being that contains out of itself the
potentiality to grow, that has the power to develop a metabolism, will be
able to reproduce himself by sex and has other living characteristics of the
human race, than we can try to create order in this seemingly chaos of powers,
functions and potentialities by measuring them by our celestial symbols.
In that case Jupiter may become a symbol of expansion (why?), and Mars of the
power of impulses (why?), and Venus of the power to relate reactions and to
convert them in a conscious judgement or in emotions (why?). In the case of
a weather chart however, these symbols will have to contain rather different
values (atmospheric pressure, temperature, etc).

Most astrologers take the (accidental) meaning of the symbols quite literal.
In most astrology books the planets, signs, houses, aspects are given sharp
concrete meanings, a lot of them still originating from the 1st century AD
(Tetra Biblos, Ptolemeus), e.g. Mars in Aries gives war, Jupiter in 5 gives
many children, Venus in 12, you can best go into a convent as soon as possible
and forget about the rest. Other meanings find their origin in medieval dogmas 
and superstition and all is mixed up with a good looking flavouring of modern
psychology.
How can we approach nowadays situations and nowadays people with symbols
containing psychological knowledge of 2000 years ago ? In so far that know-
ledge has changed since, they are WORTHLESS.
An astrological chart only shows the structural relations of the elements that
compose a 'whole' (static) and the periodic laws that control the development
of these relations (dynamic).

But, just as mathematics was not rejected when quantum theory did collapse
the whole building of physics, the principles of astrology are not touched.
About logic (and astrology is a system of logic), Bertrand Russell wrote:
"We can know correctness and incorrectness without studying the outer world,
because it only deals with symbols".

As no astrologer can tell anything about a human being if he doesn't under-
stand human nature,
so no astrologer can tell anything concrete if he doesn't know it's the
chart of a human being (it's a good test to give the chart of a gorilla 
to an astrologer),
no astrologer can tell anything sensefull if he doesn't know about the
culture in which the person is living (it's a good test to give the chart
of a starving African to an astrologer),
in fact no atrologer can interpret the chart of a person of higher (spiritual) 
level than himself (he will not understand the integration of the different
symbols as worked out by that individual),
and no astrologer can even give a usefull interpretation if he doesn't know
he is talking about a man or a woman.

    RE:  .61
    
    Thanks for your well-thought response.
    

In  astrology,  the  unfolding  of  the  individual  being   (process  of
individuation,  Jung)  is represented by the CYCLE OF THE  HOUSES.
The  houses  are  a  SYMBOLIC  representation  of  the  space around  the
individual,  divided  in  12  sectors,  each sector symbolizing a kind of
experience  which  a  particular  human  being meets as he moves about in
space.  And moving in space is a basic prerogative  of man (developing in
the  animals,  perfected  by  humans  through  muscles,  machines,  later
perhaps by specialized mental powers).  It is by displacing himself  that
man becomes truly individualized.  Self-development is based on the power
constantly to reorient oneself in  space  (to  find a new orient), to see
himself (the Self, the Eastern horizon,  the  Ascendant)  and  the  outer
world (the descendant) from a new point  of  view  in  space.  And mental
development  is  reached  by  moving  mentally, that means  moving  one's
attention.

Symbolicaly the horizon (and his  eastern  point,  the ascendant) travels
around the world (the heavens) once  a  day.    Potentially,  every  24-h
period gives man a chance to perform  such a 'global' journey, to come in
touch with all the basic facets of his  being  and  to operate on all the
levels of consciousness.

Because  each  house  represents  a  basic  kind  of  experience and  the
potentiality  of  a  different type of consciousness, the cycle of houses
refers  primarily  to consciousness and its basic changes.  It has to  be
interpreted as  'becoming'  rather  than  'being'.  In fact, the cycle of
houses  is a clock, pointing to the current phase of development  of  the
individual.  It is a process:   the process of individuation of Jung, the
task of the alchemists  or  the  building  of the temple of the bible.  A
process resulting in Jung's Self,  the rosicrucians rose in the centre of
the cross, the fire in the  middle  of  the rotating Swastica, the top of
the Egyptian pyramid or the dying of the physiological human archetype to
become,  after  three  days,  the  Christ, the perfect  human  individual
(distroy this temple and I shall rebuild it in 3 days).

Three  is  the  number  of  the building of the human 'individual' (seven
refers to  the  development of the physiological being). Both numbers are
very related to  each other in kabbalistic sense as are the physiological
and  the psychological-spiritual areas  in  human  beings  (individual  =
indivisible dual). Kabbalistic adding of 7 equals:

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 = 28, the cycle of Saturn around the Sun.
Adding of all numbers until 7 gives:

1                         =  1
1 + 2                     =  3
1 + 2 + 3                 =  6
1 + 2 + 3 + 4             = 10
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5         = 15
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6     = 21
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 = 28
                            __
                            84, the cycle of Uranus around the Sun.

Three  rotations  of  Saturn  (the ego structure,  the form into which we
have to integrate our individuality) equal  one  rotation  of Uranus, the
symbol of the true individual.
During Saturn's first rotation,  until 28,  man's physic-psychologic body
is completed (as a collectif being).
During  the  next  28  years  he has the potentiality (!)  to  build  the
structure  of  his  own individual  being,  until 56,  when the spiritual
birth can (!) occur  (integration of the 2 previous phases in the third ;
body,  soul,  spirit).   Each cycle is one complete rotation of the  axes
(horizon and vertical axis) of the birth chart.  A quarter of a  cycle is
7 years.

"Astrologers investigate the periodic laws and the laws,  determining the
structural  relations  of  a  certain  'whole'  by studying their  cosmic
measuring-instrument" (the astrological chart). (RE: .57)

(Added for Todd)
(Please redraw these circles touching each other)

              o          1       There are 18 outer circles
             o o         2
            o o o        3       9 middle circles
           o o o o       4
          o o o o o      5       1 inner circle
         o o o o o o     6
        o o o o o o o    7       There are 3 triangles
                        28       (the middle one is one circle).

The only number that  can  give  a symmetrical figure, centred around one
circle is 4 (kabbalistic 10, the cosmic).  But to develop completely, man
needs 84 year to pass through all phases of body (7), soul (4) and spirit
(1).    The  one who develops only  the  root  numbers  (1,4,7)  will  be
'settled' at 1+10+28=39 years. 

    Well...
    goodbye to all,
    i'm leaving Digital within one hour,
    forever.
    with all its quarrel,
    thanks all of you for this very *human* conference.
    
    Guido.

    Goodbye... take care now..

    Goodbye and may the Universe provide.
    
    Joanne